The rise of Buddhism in India: Growth of Buddhist population after Dr Ambedkar's conversion

For centuries, Buddhism was a major religion in India. However, a period in Indian history, saw its downfall.

In twentieth century, once again Buddhism emerged as an important faith in India.

This was solely due to Dr BR Ambedkar's decision to embrace the religion.

This is reflected in figures. For example, at district level, the old Census report tells how there were just 149 Buddhists in the 1951 Census in this district. However, the figure had gone up to 2,34,112. 

Such a huge increase, an unprecedented rise, that changed demography of the place, was possible only due to an extraordinary event--Dr BR Ambedkar's decision to embrace Buddhism. The year when he converted to Buddhism at Deeksha Bhumi was 1956. 

Hence, the difference in figures between 1951 and 1961 is so stark for the place. The Mahar community followed him. Not just one district, in the entire Vidarbha region and other parts of Maharashtra it happened. The affect was visible all over Central India, up to parts of Madhya Pradesh, also.

Not just major cities and districts but up to towns and villages. Buddhism spread fast in this region. Though, the conversion to Buddhism later slowed down, but it's impact was huge in Maharashtra. Some conversions took place in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and other states in North India. But Maharashtra was the epicentre of this movement.

Muslims must learn from own experiences under right-wing majoritarianism, shouldn't pester own minorities over sectarian, inter-community issues

Shams Ur Rehman Alavi

There is a context and it is important but first let me narrate this incident.

Once there was an event & suddenly lot of people in Bhopal began condemning the Bohra community.

They quickly forgot that one Bohra man had set up Saifia college in the region after independence & generations came up, thousands of graduates in Bhopal alone, from 1960-1990s.

Saifia College created an educated middle class in Bhopal, people in jobs in India, foreign, Middle East for long, you met and they told, 'We from Saifia'. Bhopalis should be indebted to Mulla Sajjad Husain and Mulla Fakhru but if just ine point, quick to forget & blame 'all'.

Exactly same majoritarian mindset that 'we know, what we believe is final, we decide, they must prove, be loyal to us..'.RW too feels Muslim ninority must prove. Even if you hold anti-terror conf or stand against cow slaughter, they sayprove more, onus. 'Ye aise hi hain'...

When there is bias, hate, suspicion, then there is no end to such behaviour. As Muslim what we fight against and what angers us, the same is our behaviour towards our own minority. This is no way, rather, it shows inability to learn from own experience and suffering.

If you dislike someone because of their religious sect or different belief, say it openly, no need to make an argument that I know 5-10 or 15 such people out of 2 crore so they all are bad. Try to understand our own majority privilege.

Then comes the line, 'Bolna chahiye, saamne aana chahiye'. Har cheez par prove karein bolein to tum sun rahe ho, kuchh pata bhi hai. Standard set karo. Its the same when we hear that we aren't rashtravadi & all should behave and be like 'Kalam sb'. 

If there is one Wasim Rizvi. The sudden rush to link him with other Shias, not being aware of local politics, the fact that Shias have denounced him lot of times, openly opposed him, yet putting onus on the entire sect, it's all similar to right-wing majority mindset.

LESSONS MUST BE LEARNT FROM OUR SUFFERINGS

I remember very well how when an artist painted a photograph that was considered to have hurt Hindu sentiments, Muslims were opposing but Hindus said, 'they don't oppose enough'. A top editor had also written a piece, that 'Muslims should come out to protest'. 

Though there were open protests but they were not covered in papers and TV. It is always the same--suspicion, putting the minority in the dock. Even if the minority does what you want them to do, they say--'it's just their plan, doesn't come from their heart, just an eyewash, their intent is different'.

Similarly, when media would link Muslims with terror, all over India, Muslims would repeatedly come out, hold demonstrations, even Ulema led protests, issued fatwas against violence and terror. Every other day it was done but we kept hearing it, 'not enough' and that 'Muslims don't condemn terror'.

Majority doesn't feel that it has to prove anything to anybody. Either a Sunni majority or a Hindu majority. Whoever has more numbers, feel it is is the ruling class. So a normal Sunni doesn't need to prove anything when Tarek Fatah, Salman Rushdie or Ayan Hirsi Ali, Tasleema Nasreen attack Islam and even our holy figures.

We don't even bother. As majority wants minority to 'behave'. But if one Shia does it, entire Shia community must be questioned and names of other Shias who haven't lived up to the standards of Sunni majority, must be counted, and these 4-5 or 10 names are enough for point blank charge against all Shias. 

If sectarian differences become a shield for majoritarianism and end up leading to harassment of minorities, then it's a shame. Compassion, love and unity give way to blind hatred, prejudices and accusations--that's the tragedy for us, Muslims.

[The author is born in a Sunni family. This needs to be mentioned that because it's our job to take stand, speak up when our minorities are made to prove certain things and looked at with suspicion. In this situation, we must clearly take stand and say it]

[This is first part of the series. Lot of people pretend as if there is no such widespread prejudice, pressure or charge, reality is even on social media, it's too common to question Shia beliefs and even use extremely objectionable words about them. Next part will deal with it.]

Photo: Mulla Fakhru, leading educationist of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Fascinating Figures: Census report 1911, data over a century ago gives interesting insight about demographic and religious trends in India

Shams Ur Rehman Alavi

The latest Census for us is still 2011 Census, as the results of next count would take a few more years.

The change witnessed in the region in a century is reflected in the difference between Census reports in 1911 and 2011.

A century ago, undivided India's population was 31.35 crore. That included India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Barma.

The Census report 1911 makes interesting observations and reveals facts that are mentioned below. Of the 31.35 crore population of India, Hindus numbered 21.73* crore apart from 2.43 lakh Hindu (Arya) registered and 5,500 Brahmo.

Muslim population in 1911 Census report was 6,66,47,299 i.e. 6.66 crore or 21.24%** of the country's population. Sikh were just 30.14 lakh. The total number of Hindus in India was 217.3 millions or 2/3rd of population. In British territory, the proportion is 67% and in native states, 78%. 

ABOUT HINDUS

The proportion of Hindus in UP was 85%. In Bihar and Orissa and CP and Berar, about 82%. This remains more or less the same even now. In Bombay it was 76%. In the west of Punjab, only 1/8th of inhabitants are Hindus, said the report. 

In Bengal, Hindus are 45%, says this pre-partition report. "Jain population has been diminishing. In quite recent times, many Jains have joined the Arya Samaj". It further points out, "In Punjab, UP and Bombay they are prone to take part in Hindu festivals..."

"... and are thus often disposed to regard themselves as Hindus and are likely gradually to become merged in the religion", the report later adds. "The Kasars of Akola and Jain Kalars attorned to Hinduism". 

ABOUT MUSLIMS

Muhammadans number 66.6 million or more than 1/5th of the total population of India. In NWFP and Baluchistan, Muslims number 93% and 91% respectively. In Punjab 55%, Bengal 53%".

The proportion of Muslims falls to 28% in Assam, 20% in Bombay and 14% in UP of Agra and Oudh. 'Bihar and Orissa' province is the only other state where it exceeds 10 percent. In CP and Berar it is only 4% and in Burma 3.5%. 

In native states, the proportion is much smaller but they are very numerous in Baluchistan and Kashmir and fairly so in states of Punjab, Bengal and UP. About half of Bombay Muhammedans are found in Sindh. 

Half of those in Burma are in northern coast districts where they form 1/7th of population. The single district of Purnea contains one quarter of Muhammadans of Bihar and Orissa, and Malabar, one third of Madras. 

Bengal contributes to 24 million or 36 percent, to total number of Muhammadans in India.  Muhammadans number has risen due to partly, more nourishing dietary, their social customs. fewer marriage restrictions, widows remarry more freely. 

ABOUT TRIBALS, TRIBES

There is a difficulty in classifying tribes--animists or Hindu. In some, tribal system is breaking down, they are coquetting to a varying extent with Hindu gods. There is quite an interesting observation in the report.

"Tthe decision depends on idiosyncrasy of enumerator and on the exact wording of the instructions laid down for his guidance. A high caste Hindu enumerator might record as animists those whom a Christian or aboriginal enumerator might enter as Hindus. There is a considerable element of uncertainty. 

ABOUT CHRISTIANS

There are 38.76 lakh Christians in India, says the report. Of these, 35.74 lakh are Indian Christians. Remainder are European and Anglo Indian. About 3/5th of the total number of Indian Christians are found in Madras and its native states, including Cochin and Travancore. 

Though number of Christians is still small, it is increasing very rapidly. During last ten years it has grown by 32.6%, and it has more than doubled since 1881. the number of Indian Christians has multiplied nearly 3 fold since 1872 [observations in the report of the Census 1911]

IMPORTANT

*All the figures and percentage need to be readjusted if India-Pakistan-Bangladesh are to be compared with today's geographical boundaries, because this included Burma.

**The percentage will be slightly different as this Census takes Myanmar into account. 

***This is an old representative map and shows pre-independence era boundaries, not present era or national- international boundaries, it is just for illustrative and educational purpose.

Chunri Yatras: New traditions, new religious practices taking root in Hinduism

The 'Chunri Yatras' have become too common in Madhya Pradesh over the last few years.

The devotees bring huge chunris, walking all the way to the temples, taking them to faraway shrines and offering them to the deity.

This particular 'chunri' is 1,111 metres or 1.11 km long. People walk barefoot, even though road is hot.

On way, flowers are sprinkled. At the shrine, first puja and then the ceremony. They walk barefoot for several kilometers.

Tens of thousands of people participate in such events. These are increasingly becoming popular. Within a span of 5-6 years, these Yatras have become grand and are now common in Central India.

Of course, politicians too love all religious events. It helps them build their base in the region and help in improving their image if they organise or fund or help in such events.

We have seen images changing--those seen as useless fellows into a religious (good) leader. Traffic on the Jabalpur-Jaipur was affected for five hours as the Yatra was on.

Terror in Haryana: 38 killed in statewide violence after Dera chief's conviction in rape case

38 people were killed after Dera Sacha Sauda chief was held guilty of rape and sexual exploitation.

*Entire Haryana was on the boil, hundreds were injured. 38 persons killed in the violence.

*People killed, bodies lying on the streets, vehicles burnt in Panchkula, violence in many towns.

*Violence on the streets in Haryana, parts of Punjab, Delhi and UP.

*Army had to be called out, policemen were attacked at several places.

*High Court chided Centre as well as State government for failure.

*Other than Panchkula, violence in Hisar, Sirsa, many other towns in Haryana too.

*Railway stations burnt, train compartments, buses, set afire. Arson in Delhi also.

*Arson, attacks in Punjab too.

*AK 47 assault rifle, revolvers, rifles seized from Gurmeet Singh's vehicles.

*Cases registered against 30,000 persons

*Hotels, buildings, petrol pumps, burnt. In Delhi, at least ten DTC buses burnt.

Also, two bogeys of Rewa Express at Anand Vihar Terminus burnt.

*Violence in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh too.

If this is not terror, then what else is?

Dera Sacha Sauda is a cult led by self-styled spiritual guru or Godman Gurmeet Singh Ram Raheem.

The Dera chief has been accused of murders too. The journalist who wrote against Dera, was killed.

There have been allegations that Sadhvis were sexually exploited in Ashram. Also, men in the inner circle were made impotent.

The Dera chief lived a lavish life, dressed as Pop artiste, made movies and acted as hero. Political parties went to him to get his support as dera has a strong following.

It is a shame that despite such accusations, he remained influential and enjoyed excellent rapport with top politicians of the country.

PM, CM and senior BJP, Congress leaders either met him and had photographs with him or congratulated him for his 'social work'.

Of late, he had been close to BJP but this failed to get him any reprieve. He has been convicted and given 20 year sentence. After he was held guilty, entire Haryana was on boil.

[Photo courtesy: Jaipal Singh, Indian Express]

BJP won election on development plank but doesn't know anything except divisive politics!

The BJP came to power on the development plank.

It had fought the Lok Sabha election, claiming that its slogan was, 'Sabka sath, Sabka vikas'.

It meant that the party had claimed voters' support for an inclusive growth and developmental model.

But, as soon as it came to power, it steadily got back to divisive politics.

You may claim otherwise but it seems that the BJP can't do without raising issues that divide society.

Senior journalist Dilip C Mandal, in a Facebook post, wrote:

Issues BJP govt likes, wants you to discuss--Pakistan, Triple Talaq, Uniform Civil Code, Cow, Muslims, Army, Communalism et al. On TV channels, 90% debates will be on these subjects.

Issues that irk BJP and it doesn't want focus on them include--Inflation, Illiteracy, Corruption, Unemployment, Farmers suicides, poor state of health education, casteism, crimes against Dalits ands other backward sections, etc. Channels won't talk about them.

In fact, he suggests that TV channels are also part of the game: one group takes 'secular' position, the other takes 'non-secular' position, which not just divide society but shift focus from the real issues.

It seems that BJP is yet to learn that it is not just a political party but that it wins elections in states and at the Centre, and it needs to govern, to administer, to run the country.

Call me a critic. Yes, I am not a BJP fan. But why is your focus not on development. You lose Delhi and you go after Arvind Kejriwal and his party, in such a cheap manner that doesn't behove a national party.

Every few months there would be a state election and the strategy to win poll is nothing but to 'divide' voter. Hence, development is left behind somewhere. Barely two more years you have.

You hope to polarise, divide and exploit patritotic feelings to win again in 2019. But, be realistic. Ask yourself, what have you done on developmental front. Where is inclusive development?

If only the focus was right, you could have won admirers from the opposite camp also. But it seems that you are yet to learn any other method--apart from communal divisions an controversial issues, to stay afloat in politics.

Tajul Masajid: India's biggest mosque is located in Bhopal

Shams Ur Rehman Alavi

The biggest mosque in India is located in Bhopal.

Just because the mosque is not in a metropolitan city, this fact is not known as much.

Tajul Masajid* is one of the biggest mosques in the world and is an architectural marvel.

It is much bigger than Delhi's Jama Masjid, which is generally termed as India's biggest mosque.

The name Tajul Masajid means 'Crown among Mosques' [pronunication: Masaajid, plural of masjid i.e. mosques]. The construction of Tajul Masajid began in 19th century, when Bhopal was a princely state.

Nawab Shahjehan Begam who ruled the Bhopal state, wanted to build a grand mosque. The construction began but it couldn't continue for long and the mosque remained incomplete.

It was in the twentieth century, a few decades after independence that Tajul Masajid was completed. Maulana Imran Khan Nadvi had taken up the task on himself to complete the mosque.

It was the decade of 70s that the mosque finally got completed. Apart from the main structure and the vast courtyard, its minarets are also much thicker than Jama Masjid, Delhi or other major mosques.

The huge area on either sides is also part of the mosque. The pond is also part of the mosque land as it was built for the purpose of 'wazu' [ablutions] for people who come to offer prayers [Namaz]. There are hundreds of students who live in rooms on the campus and study in the madarsa here.

The mosque also has a separate space for women to offer prayers. When descendants of the royal family came to Bhopal, they prayed in the part of the mosque. The Tablighi Jamat's annual Ijtima was held here in the past.

For over half-a-century, the Alami Tablighi Ijtima [grand annual congregation] was held at Tajul Masajid. A market also used to develop in the area during Ijtima. However, a few years ago the Ijtima venue was shifted to Eintkhedi, outside Bhopal.

Tajul Masajid is unique in many ways. Close to the mosque, on the other side of road is Dhai Seedhi Masjid--Two and half staircase mosque, which is said to be among the smallest mosques in the world. It was initially built on a 'burj', which was part of Bhopal's Fatehgarh fort. 

Lessons to Legislators: Jain saint Acharya Vidyasagar delivers discourse in MP Assembly, raises issue of commercialization of education

Jain saint Acharya Vidyasagar visited the Madhya Pradesh Assembly and delivered a discourse.

Vidyasagar, who is amongst most revered Jain saints, along with 38 other Jain monks reached the Vidhan Sabha.

At the gate, Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and speaker Sitasharan Sharma welcomed the guests.

Acharya Vidyasagar was invited by CM to deliver a discourse in the Assembly. Also, the speaker had gone to him, urging him to visit Assembly. He agreed and the rare event of a Saint delivering discourse was held.

The saint expressed his dissatisfaction on commercialization of education. He told the MLAs that there should be more focus on development. The seer said that once elected, there shouldn't be acrimony over Paksh-Vipaksh i.e. Ruling Party-Opposition, and all should work for public welfare. He also drew attention of CM and MLAs towards inequitable distribution in the society.

Islam in United States: Muslim population in America estimated from 5 million to 7 million

For years, there has been confusion over the population of Muslims in the United States of America  (USA).

In the past, most of the estimates suggested varying figures that ranged from 2.6 million to 5 million.

But now certain other and estimates suggest that the number could be well over 7 million--which is a big figure considering that the Muslims are settled mostly in urban areas in USA.

Even this is estimate was made more than four years ago. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) had estimated that there were 7 million Muslims in US. 

President Barack Obama had clearly said that there were 7 million Muslims in America. He said it in his famous speech, which was delivered in Cairo [Egypt] in the year 2009. Listen to the speech at this LINK

The focus on Muslim population is back after Donald Trump, who aspires to become US president, has made controversial comments, and announced that if elected, he would ban entry of Muslims in the country.
 
Though it is not clear how he aims to achieve the objective, Trump's comments have led to an uproar across the world. Right-wing xenophobes like Trump may rouse anti-Muslim sentiments, but Islam has been a part of American culture and heritage for long. 

PEW REPORT on Muslim population. LINK

In fact, already there are tens of millions of Muslims in the country. But the statistics are not official.

The reason for confusion over the population of Muslims in United States (US) was that the citizens' religious affiliations couldn't be asked for in census in USA, and hence, there was no accurate and official record about the size of Muslim community in America. 

VIDEO: HOW MANY MUSLIMS IN UNITED STATES (US), 7 Million [CNN report]

It was believed that that the figure was between 3.3-5.7 million earlier. But, independent agencies and surveys conducted, and estimated on the basis of attendances at all the mosques, have led to the estimate.

In fact, the figure may be even higher. Though Islam has been part of American culture for ages, and there has been Muslim presence in the country from the 17th century, the Muslim communities grew in size only in 20th century.

STATES WITH LARGEST MUSLIM POPULATION

New York is estimated to have the highest Muslim population. The estimate is between 6,00,000 to 1 million [6-10 lakh].

Though there is no official figure, here is an estimate of population in states that have higher Muslim percentage [SOURCE]

The earliest Muslim communities were the African-Americans and the Arabs.

In the later part of 20th century, Muslim population in US began increasing fast.

The reason has been consistent immigration from other countries.

Muslims from South Asia, particularly, India-Pakistan-Bangladesh and the Middle East have been immigrating to US in large numbers.

Though Muslims faced prejudices and mistrust post-9/11, yet this didn't stop Muslims from coming to America.
 
The number of Muslims has been going up because of asylum seekers and Muslims from conflict-prone regions and war-torn countries that are being granted citizenship. The Muslim countries that got maximum green cards issued are  Pakistan, Iraq,  Bangladesh, Egypt, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Morocco & Jordan.

VIDEO: US MUSLIM population set to double by 2030 [USA Today report

[*Illustration from an earlier report]

When media terms a Terrorist attack as 'ambush' : Criterion for terming a violent attack as terrorism, another more severe attack as 'ambush'

When 20 armymen were killed in attack by banned 'militant' groups in Manipur, the TV channels and newspapers termed it as 'ambush'.

Despite the fact that it was the worst attack on army in decades, the word terror wasn't used.

In fact, many reports didn't mention early in their reports, that who was behind the attack.

1. The headlines and sub-headlines were just about 'armymen killed', not about those who committed the act.

2. No one showed photos of wanted NSCN-KCP-KYKL chiefs or security experts talking about their modules or other past crimes by them.

3. For our media, which is quite sensitive about army, this attack was not enough to cause any OUTRAGE.

No live reports, no flash and no special panel discussions. The next morning, newspapers also carried the story just like a routine report, sans any emotion or information about the 'killers'.

4. In follow-up stories in many papers, words like 'rebel' were used, not terrorist or militant. So what exactly is terror? Does the identity of the 'shooter' or' attackers' lead to sudden decision that word like 'Terrorist' would not be used and it would be termed as 'Ambush'. How this happens, who's behind it?

5. After all in incidents, when there is no casualty and a person who may not belong to any banned group and is killed in an encounter by police, he is quickly termed terrorist, just for carrying a gun or firing a bullet. Is it because the person has a different name!

6. Let's be straight, it is about having a Muslim name. So how does it occur? Knowingly or Unknowingly. No norms or internal system to decide. Or it is so deeply engrained in minds, that as soon as the report comes or story develops, the differentiation of words is there.

7. Any attack, anywhere [not just in North East, Chhattisgarh or any other part of the country by any banned outfit, howsoever dreaded or big in magnitude, will never be termed Terror attack unless the suspect is a Muslim.

8. If a Muslim is killed in encounter and police says that he was trying to fire, he is termed 'TERRORIST', but those who belong to banned militant-terror groups, and commit such gruesome killings, aren't termed even extremists or radicals.

9. By use of words like 'ambush', the severity of the incident is diluted and the image continues to be reinforced that Terrorist can only be a CERTAIN PERSON, belonging to a certain group. Isn't it absolutely unfair and unjustified.

10. Religious is a factor. There is a clear bias. Let's face it. A non-Muslim can commit crime of any magnitude but won't be termed as Terrorist. And a Muslim can always be implicated and termed Terrorist even if he hasn't commit any violent act.

If youths who shot a Delhi cop who had raided their home in Batla House locality were termed terrorists by all, then why those who killed 20 armymen NOT called terrorist? Define terrorism or accept your biases and double standards. Accept, that you are not naive, but doing it purposely to defame Muslims. That it's Islamophobia--crime to malign an entire religion.

11. The result is that in a country where Armyman is treated in utmost respect and injury or casualty can lead to media affecting relations with other countries, the terrorist attacks like in Manipur, are simply treated as 'just an unfortunate happening' and is forgotten.

12. On the contrary, individuals can be framed, termed 'Terrorist' without even firing a bullet, and made to rot in jails for the rest of their lives, because if someone is termed Terrorist, everyone parrots the line, he is branded and he is destroyed--from lawmakers to courts, he is seen as one.

So does anyone has answer that why such unfair attitude in media persists.

Aren't Muslims justified in feeling that they are being targeted and wrongly portrayed. Why it continues? Is it because there is no strong voice raised till now by Muslim leaders, politicians, thinkers and community jointly? 

Malaysia's ban on non-Muslims' use of word 'Allah' must be condemned

The Malaysian government's controversial decision to restrain non-Muslims from using the word 'Allah' for God, defies logic.

In the Holy Quran, the first surah, starts with 'Alhamdulillahi-rabb-il-alamin', which means, 'The God of the World', not the 'God of Muslims' alone.

It is 'aalamin' [for the entire world], not 'muslimin'. Clearly, there is no Islamic basis either to bar any community from using the word 'Allah' exclusively.

Secondly, words like 'Rab', 'Malik' or 'Khuda' are being used for centuries God in different regions by Muslims.

This is about local culture. Similarly, Christians or adherents of other religions who live in Malay-speak or Jews and other minorities in Arabic-speaking areas, have been using the word 'Allah' for ages.

Don't Muslims use the word 'God' quite often? In fact, the Malaysian government's succumbing to certain clerics' diktats, is surprising.

Also, the court order should have been reversed. It sets a bad example. It is not just against the principals of democracy but also in violation of Islamic spirit.

When a government in a country like Malaysia takes such a decision, then it is all the more disturbing. Its international image as a modern, progressive country would also be hit.  I fail to understand what drives the regime to take such a step or what are the fears of certain Ulema?

Do they feel that use of the word 'Allah' in sermons and prayers would attract Muslims towards Christianity.
If they have such fears, then it means that they have less confidence their own religion and community, and are more worried about propagators of other faiths.

Such bans are used to harass religions minorities and create religious tensions. It is a totally unjust and nonsensical ban. Further, it shows growing intolerance in the society. And it must be condemned. Hope that good sense will prevail and the decision would reversed soon. 

Criticism of Saudi Arabia regime either for destruction of Islamic heritage or on human rights, other issues remains a taboo in Media!

Just a few days back a group of leading Shia clerics held a press conference in Lucknow. Amongst other issues, they spoke on the continuous destruction of Islamic heritage in Saudi Arab.

The news was almost blacked out in media except a small and different sort of version which appeared in a few Urdu newspapers.

This is not the first time that such a thing has happened but it is definitely disturbing. Can't you criticise a government or a regime? Is there anything wrong with that? Of course not. It's an individuals right.

In this press conference, scholars expressed their opinion about the Bashar Al Assed regime's excesses in Syria, castigated the Taliban and also expressed their apprehensions about certain issues regarding Saudi authorities. One may or may not agree to them but they are surely entitled to speak their mind. 

1. When Muslim minority expects media to listen to its grievances in a Hindu majority country, why shouldn't we at least hear the concerns of a minority among Muslims--the Shias. This is a strange paradox. I surely fail to understand it. Even English, Hindi media avoids it.

2. I am proud that in my country, a large section of Hindus and other communities speak in favour of Muslims when Babri Masjid was demolished. But it is embarrassing that mosques, more than thousand years old that have link with earliest Islamic personalities including the Prophet's family or companions, get destroyed without whimper in this 'Islamic country' under the garb of 'expansion' or 'development'.

May be a few things could be tolerated but they are not accountable to anyone, it seems. Had it not been Turkey putting its foot down and insisting that Saudis adhere to the past agreements, the situation could have been even worse.

3. On one hand, the Saudi government has done a great job in ensuring that millions of Haj pilgrims from across the world, get facilities. The infrastructure in the holy cities of Mecca and Medinah has been improved vastly in the last few decades. For this they ought to be praised.

4. I am a Sunni and don't have any close Shia friend either. But this muzzling of any dissenting voice seems odd. Saudi Arab is a monarchy though kingship is not in sync with Islamic principles. For a non-Arab it may not be too relevant whether they are monarchs or champions of democracy and justive but for the fact that the same regime then preaches and imposes rules and bizarre codes on citizens as per its own interpretations.

5. Sauds changed the name of Hejaz or Arab to 'Saudi' Arab, ie, the Arab of a family--the Sauds. The Saudi state and its allies in Gulf always seem more concerned about their own hold to power [naturally], as also the regional balance of power, even though, they are aware that they enjoy a clear authority and [will always have] because of holy sites. Still, they remain obsessed with the idea to contain Iran.

6. Because of the custodianship of the holy Islamic sites, they get enormous respect which they will always have but it doesn't mean that they can not be criticised for their erratic actions. Strangely, there is a silence among Muslims when it comes to Saudi policies, either with regard to women which are clearly divergent from the spirit of Islam, to the way they have destroyed Islamic heritage in the holy land.

7. In fact, apologists would be quick to say, 'See how much they have done for Muslims', or 'They are giving more rights to women' [Inayat, aapka Shukriya Janab] and that 'millions are employed there'. The Sheikhs' political positions is also often in contrast with views of an ordinary person on the Muslim street.

8. The way buildings were destroyed is well-known but kept hush hush. Little is discussed or spoken about in Urdu or Muslim media either. In fact, an effort seems to be going on to put Saudi sheikhs at a much higher pedestal. Is it because Petro dollars [Riyal] dazzle the eyes and then nothing else is visible?

9. From the days, when centuries old inscriptions of 'Ya Muhammad' PBUH محمد  were changed to 'Ya Majeed' مجید [One of the names of Allah] with just a few dots here and there, to razing umpteen houses of Sahaba, the demolitions, the destruction of Jannatul-Baqi, and even the ultimate fear, we have seen Saudi regimes' acts.

10. For years, this blog has not taken sectarian positions. I still don't. I have not in support of any sect nor against it. But regimes and its policies must be censured. This is no blasphemy. When either Shias or any other group speaks, why they are not heard? Muslim mind should not be servile or slavish to a regime. At least, the genuine concerns of the Muslims worldwide and their groups should be voiced, not suppressed.

If you venerate Saudi rulers and blindly support their each and every act, you are free to do so, but just remember they are not divine. Its a person's right to idolize the 'Is Zameen ke Badshah' and differ with the rest, just like many disagree with the Saudi regime on a host of issues. That's all.

RSS chief doesn't know, Indian Muslims respect Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and all major figures of Hinduism for ages

Now, RSS Chief Sudarshan has asked Muslims to give respect to Krishna and treat him as a paighambars [one among the messengers of God].

This is a strange wish. Firstly, all people must follow own religion and also respect others' religions.

No one should disrespect other religions and faiths. In fact, Islam teaches Muslims to never put down the holy figures of other religions.

I feel you need to know more about the culture of this country, which is too vast.

Any Hindu or Muslim should follow own religion and there is no need to interfere in others' faith.

Still, Muslims always treat Rama and Krishna respectfully. As a child my father always used to chide me if I said Krishna or Rama.

He always asked me to say Krishna Ji and Ramchandra Ji. Unlike just Rama or Krishna as many of my Hindu friends used to say.

This concept of 'waza-daari' and the mutual respect of culture was part of Oudh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and all over Northern India including Bengal.

KS Sudarshan may not be aware of it as he hails from a different region. It is not just cultural reason or because we are living in India among Hindus, but also as per our religious beliefs, our neighbours and other faiths' religious figures are not to be disrespected.

The Holy Quran says that Allah sent messengers to all lands, to all people and amongst all religions. How is it possible that  he didn't send them to India? Does RSS have an idea about the culture that existed for centuries in India.

In fact, Muslim poets used to write poetry praising Krishnaji and Hindus wrote 'na'at' in praise of Prophet Muhammad. This was not for sake of any social responsibility or show off. But for one's inner self, beliefs and the true feeling of respect towards the great and reverential figures. 

The right-wing fellows would never appreciate this because I dout they read Hasrat Mohani's verses or Mohsin Kakorvi's 'Simt kashi chala jaanib-e-mathura baadal...' which are in Urdu.

In India, many ordinary Hindus continue to observe Muharram despite the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric. So what if you consider going to Dargah as a 'Muslim practice, Hindus continue to go to Sufi saints' graves, though even sections of Muslims now avoid going to mazaars. 

Hate never succeeds in real sense. The RSS has a huge cadre. They should try to reach out to Muslims. Why don't they go to Muslims, meet Muslims, increase the level of interaction with the minorities? Learn about Islam and Muslims with an open mind. 

This would be a real step towards integration. Those with right-wing allegiance-- Hindutva groups use harsh language for Islam. You talk about ghettoisation but ever raise voice about the fact that section of Jains and Gujarati Hindus [housing societies] stop Muslims from buying flat in their areas?

When sexual crimes against women are seen with a communal angle: Rapes and Religions!

A five-year-old girl was raped and murdered in my City. It was a brutal and highly despicable crime.

But the irony is that the first question asked after the crime is that 'who has done it'?

That was not because of the normal curiosity. It was just to ascertain the religion of the person.

Mercifully, most of the rapes of minors in the last year in this City saw Hindu assailants and Hindu victims.

Had it been a Muslim accused in even a single case, there might have been a retaliatory violence or even a communal riot. What has happened to our sensibilities?

If a Muslim is found indulging in eve teasing it leads to a riot-like situation. Similarly, if a Muslim girl is raped by a Hindu, it leads to communal tension. Unfortunately the magnitude of the crime, the trauma of the victim and the other aspects of crime are forgotten.

What is thought about is just religion. Media has also to be blamed as it is not fair always. Far from being objective, it is plain sensationalist. There have been incidents when a man from majority community committed sexual assault but effort was made to dilute the crime by terming him as 'mentally deranged person'.

The situation has come to such a passe that one has to ironically, expect, that women would suffer only at the hands of their own co-religionists. Isn't it shameful. Why should they face it at all. The debate should be on why there is so much violence against women in the society.

And why there is growing trend of rapes, molestation, burning of women for dowry and acid attacks on them. Can anything be more unfortunate for a society in this age and era?